Argument33 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第一周第一次作业 by lilianli

lilianliUID: 2437378

Argument 33
The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
'The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade.'在广泛区域分散分布的很多史前遗迹发现的形状独特的陶壶导致考古学家提出疑问：这些壶是如何流传的？有些人相信壶的制造者迁移到别的地方并把壶随之带来；另一些人相信壶是通过贸易流传的，而他们的制造者留在一个地方。现在，对于史前人类骨骼的分析可以解决这个争论: 在多种食物中都含有的某种金属元素的高含量与那些成年后移居到新地方的人有很高的关联性。在一些遗迹的壶附近发现的很多骨头都显示出这种金属元素的高含量。因此，这些壶肯定是通过迁徙而不是贸易来流传的。
【提纲】
1.       the high level of a certain metallic element may also associated with non-migrants.
2.       migrants to whom the bones belong also can be makers and traders.
3.       the bones may have no relation with the pots. At the same place is just a coincidence.  
【正文】
In this argument the author brings out a question about how the distinctively shaped ceramic pots were spread at prehistoric age. Given two assumptions and several evidences, the author jumps to a conclusion that the pots were spread by migration, not trade. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
To begin with, the author argues that high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. But whether the high levels of a certain metallic element has relevance to aborigines isn't pointed out. If there was abundant of food with certain metallic element, the aborigines' bones were also in association with high metallic element contents. The evidence only can be convincing when the detailed relation merely between element qualities and migrants is testified. In fact, the high metallic element levels may have complex contact with prehistorical people.
Secondly, even if the bones belong to people whomigrated to a new place after childhood, the migrants still may be the traders as well as the pots' makers. The reasons why they migrated are various. Maybe they migrated to a new place in order to trade pots with others, choose a better place to make pots and so on. It's possible that trading resulted in migration. So there isn't sufficient evidence to show the migrants' other identities not to mention which is their main identity.
Last but not least, the bones found may have no relation with the pots. It's just a coincidence the bones and pots are at the same place. And to assert the pots' owner according to these bones is outright unreasonable. It is highly possible that other factors might bring out the same result. For instance, the geological movements like earthquakes or landslides could change bones and pots' former sites in thousands of years. Also ,the pots may be depredated and the marauders just died near the pots during a war. Even there is the possibility that the bones and pots don't belong to the same time. The advanced technology should be used to explore the real connection between bones and pots.
In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author should give more evidences to show the interior connection between high levels of a certain metallic element and migrants. At the same time, the bone owner's identity and the relationship with pots need to be confirmed.

[ 本帖最后由 lilianli 于 2009-1-12 01:26 编辑 ]

sibslccUID: 2463158

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-909076-1-1.html

lilianliUID: 2437378

非常感谢你的批改!
1.I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects. 是北美范文Argument3里的表达.
2.So there isn't sufficient evidence to show the migrants' other identities not to mention which is their main identity. 怎一个乱字了得。呵呵
我想表达没有足够证据证明移民的其他身份,更不用说哪一个是他们的主要身份.
改成:So there isn't sufficient evidence to testify the migrants' other identities not to mention which is their main. 如何?
3.那个属于同时代,如何表达才地道些啊?

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
祝好!